[1. MAJMOD 2026-02 Ashford Mills PUD. Request for a Major Modification to the Ashford Mills PUD (Ord. 2006-119, as amended) to modify the Master Development Plan (MDP) Text and Map, specifically for the designated commercial use property located at the intersection of Shearwater Parkway and County Road 210 West; (Parcel #009945-0100). This item was continued from the May 21,2026 Planning and Zoning Agency Hearing to allow the applicant to develop a traffic study. ]

FIRST ITEM AND WE'RE GOING TO NEED EX-PARTE ON THIS.

THIS IS A MAJOR MODIFICATION FOR AFFORD MILLS.

A CONTINUATION OF THE LAST MEETING.

COME ON FORWARD AND LET US HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

AND EX-PARTE, WE'LL DO THAT, MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> YES, I VISITED THE SITE AGAIN.

I ALSO ATTENDED THE TROUT CREEK CDD MEETING AND HAD BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT AFTER THE MEETING.

>> MS. SPIEGEL. >> A SITE VISIT FOR THE PREVIOUS TIME YOU WERE UP HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TO SAY

IT AGAIN, BUT THERE IT IS. >> MR. MATOVINA.

>> I HAD A CONVERSATION LAST WEEK WITH BILL SHOWING, WITH KIMLEE HORN ABOUT WHAT MY CONCERNS WERE AND WHAT I FELT LIKE THEY NEEDED TO EXPLAIN TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND THEN YESTERDAY MORNING FROM ABOUT 9:00 TO 9:30 THEY WENT OVER A VERY DETAILED REVIEW THEY DID OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF THIS WITH ME AND IT WAS EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.

>> GOOD TO HEAR. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS MARK SHELTON WITH KIMLEE HORN AND ASSOCIATES. I'M HERE TO TRY TO FILL BLAIR'S SHOES WHO WAS HERE TWO WEEKS AGO.

SO HOPEFULLY I CAN DO MY BEST. JACK IS WITH ME TO THE LEFT.

AND THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT IS BEHIND ME SEATED.

AGAIN, BLAIR AND BILL BOTH SEND THEIR REGARDS.

WHOOPS. A LITTLE FAST.

SO IN RESPECT TO YOUR TIME AND SEEING HOW THIS IS A REHASH OF TWO WEEKS AGO, WE'LL CUT THIS DOWN.

I'LL SUMMARIZE FOR YOU AND LET JACK SPEAK TO SOME OF THE TRAFFIC FINDINGS THAT WE HAVE. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT'S AT THE CORNER OF STEERWATER PARKWAY AND COUNTY ROAD 210.

IT'S A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THAT PUD TO ALLOW FOR INTERCONNECTION IN DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT EDGE. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE CHANGING THE PUD, OF COURSE, AS I MENTIONED TO PROVIDE FOR INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO COMMERCIAL PUDS.

IT'S SAME OWNERSHIP, DIFFERENT PUDS.

A WAIVER OF THE DEVELOPMENT EDGE.

THIS IS THE DIVISION THAT'S BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL PARCELS, SO IT'S GOING TO GO FROM 20 TO 10, WHICH STILL LEAVES 30 FEET SEPARATION. IT'S A WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED SIDEWALK BETWEEN PARCELS OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.

ALLOWS FOR AN EXIT-ONLY IF POSSIBLE ON PIE TREE LANE.

THIS IS A RIGHT OUT ONLY. AND ALSO IS TO REVISE TEXT TO ALLOW THE DUTCHSTERS WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS INTERNAL TO THE PROJECT -- DUMPSTERS. AS YOU CAN SEE HEAR, THIS IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE RIGHT TURN EXIT ON PINE TREE LANE.

THAT SHOWS THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO COMMERCIAL PARCELS. THE REDUCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT EDGE AS MENTIONED BETWEEN THE TWO COMMERCIAL PROJECTS.

POTENTIAL RIGHT-TURN EXIT ONLY. THE REDUCTION OF THE SIDEWALK BETWEEN THE PARCELS. AND DUMPSTERS IN THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS. AND NOT TO MENTION THERE'S NO WETLAND IMPACTS IN THIS PROJECT. SO THAT'S A QUICK SUMMARY.

I'M GOING TO COME BACK HERE. BUT I'LL HAND IT OFF NOW TO JACK

[00:10:02]

HOLDS BURGE TO SPEAK ABOUT SOME OF THE TRAFFIC FINDINGS --

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M ALSO WITH KINLEY HORN.

AND WE DID WORK ON THE TRA TRAFFIC -- KIMLEY HORN.

WE WORKED ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.

WE COUNTED THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND THE SURROUNDING INTERSECTIONS. WE TRIED TO -- FROM THE COMMENTS FROM THE PREVIOUS HEARING WE TRIED TO COMPARE THE FUTURE CONDITION SCENARIOS WITH INTERCONNECTIVITY AND WITHOUT INTERCONNECTIVITY TO DETERMIE THE EFFECTS OF THE INTERCONNECTIVITY ON THE ADJACENT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. AND SO THE EXISTING COUNTS GAVE US THE COUNTS THAT ARE GOING IN AND OUT OF THE EXISTING DAY CARE AND RETAIL AND THEY ALSO KIND OF HELPED US DETERMINE WHERE THE EXISTING TRAFFIC FROM THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ARE COMING AND GOING TODAY. BASICALLY WE REDISTRIBUTED THOSE TRIPS FOR THE WITH AND WITHOUT INTERCONNECTIVELY SCHEDULE AND DID THE SAME THING FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC, AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT INTERCONNECTIVITY DOES RESULT IN A MINOR INCREASE IN THE NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN TRAFFIC AT THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. SO THAT'S THE NORTHBOUND TO WESTBOUND MOVEMENT, BASICALLY THE TRAFFIC TURNING LEFT OUT OF SHEARWATER. BUT THE INTERCONNECTIVITY WHEN COMPARED TO NO INTERCONNECTIVITY RESULTS IN A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN THE NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN TRAFFIC AT THAT INTERSECTION. SO THAT'S THE RIGHT TURN OUT OF SHEARWATER. AND ALSO IT KIND OF WORKED OUT REALLY WELL WHERE OUR OBSERVATIONS AND COUNTS SHOWED THAT THE NORTHBOUND LEFT-TURN MOVEMENT IS KIND OF THE MINOR MOVEMENT ON THAT NORTHBOUND APPROACH.

WHEREAS THE NORTHBOUND RIGHT-TURN MOVEMENT IS THE MUCH MORE CRITICAL AND HIGHER MACHINE-VOLUME MOVEMENT -- HIGHER-VOLUME MOVEMENT. WE ARE REDUCING TRIPS FROM THE NORTHBOUND RIGHT CRITICAL MOVEMENT AND WE'RE ADDING TRIPS TO -- WE'RE ADDING A MINOR AMOUNT OF TRIPS TO THE NORTHBOUND LEFT-TURN MOVEMENT WHICH CURRENTLY HAS CAPACITY TO SERVE A FEW EXTRA TRIPS. SO, MARK, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AND WE LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, MODELING SOFTWARE, AND TRIED TO SET UP TWO SCENARIOS AND BASICALLY KEEPING EVERYTHING THE SAME, SO KEEPING SIGNAL TIMINGS THE SAME FOR EACH SCENARIO.

THE ONLY THING WE'RE CHANGING IS THE VOLUMES AT EACH SCENARIO.

ONE SCENARIO WITH INTERCONNECTIVITY, ONE SCENARIO WITHOUT INTERCONNECTIVITY AND COMPARING THE TWO -- I MEAN, IT'S BASICALLY INTERCONNECTIVITY WHEN COMPARED TO NO INTERCONNECTIVITY IS EXPECTED TO RESULT IN ALMOST AN UNNOTICEABLE AMOUNT OF DELAY ON THAT NORTHBOUND LEFT-TURN MOVEMENT OUT OF SHEARWATER. AND IT -- AND WE WOULD EXPECT A MORE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN THE RIGHT TURNOUT THAN WE WOULD A DEGRADATION OF THE LEFT TURNOUT.

TO PUT SOME NUMBERS TO IT, AFTER ALL OF OUR REASSIGNMENT OF THE TRIPS WE ARE PREDICTING THAT WE'RE ADDING ABOUT 9 A.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS TO THE NORTHBOUND LEFT-TURN MOVEMENT AND ABOUT 1 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP TO THE LEFT-TURN MOVEMENT.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TRIPS.

YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE FUTURE INTERSECTIONS' GOING TO RUN ON MAYBE A TWO-MINUTE CYCLE, WHICH WOULD BE 30 CYCLES PER HOUR.

EVEN THE 9 A.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS, THAT'S, LIKE, ONE TRIP EVERY THREE CYCLES. SO PRETTY UNNOTICEABLE EFFECTS.

I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO MARK. >> THANK YOU, JACK.

I APPRECIATE YOU EXPLAINING THAT TO ME A COUPLE TIMES THIS MORNING AS WELL. I WANT TO FINISH UP BY SAYING THAT STAFF DOES FIND THAT THIS IS A BENEFIT.

THE REQUEST MAKES THE SITE MORE USABLE, INTERCONNECTING IT.

IT ALSO -- THE STAFF ENCOURAGES INTERCONNECTIVITY AND SAYS THIS HAD PROVIDE FOR A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT FLOW OF TRAFFIC, AND SOME OF THE PROJECT BEEN FITS I'M SURE YOU SAW TWO WEEKS AGO IT, PROVIDES THE INTERCONNECTIVITY FOR PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLES AND VEHICLES.

THERE'S NO NEW ACCESS OFF OF 210 WHICH I'M HAPPY ABOUT LIVING OFF OF 210. IT'S INFILL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH MEANS THERE'S DEVELOPMENT AT ALL SIDES OF THIS.

AND IT'S APPROPRIATELY SCALED COMMERCIAL.

THIS COMES RIGHT OUT OF THE CONFERENCE PLAN.

IT UTILIZES EXISTING PUD USES AND SQUARE FOOTAGE.

THIS IS NO INCREASE IN INTENSITY, NO NEW USES, AND FINALLY ONCE AGAIN IT DOESN'T JUST MEET IT, IT EXCEEDS WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO WITH THAT WE'LL TABBED BY OR

[00:15:02]

ANY-WE'LL STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

MS. SPIEGEL. >> WELL, JUST FOR DISCUSSION, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THIS AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. VANDERVEENA IF HE HAD HIS CONCERNS ALLAYED BY THIS STUDY AND MR. LABANOWSKI I BELIEVE EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN. I WAS WANTING TO TALK AS A BOARD ABOUT THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE

APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO THAT. >> WELL, I THINK WE GOT ALL THIS IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST -- I THINK WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO --

>> MR. LABANOWSKI? OKAY.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. I NOW MARK THIS WAS CONTINUED BASED ON TRAFFIC CONCERNS, BUT I HAD ALSO ASKED THE QUESTION WERE THERE ANY GO FORWARD TORTOISES ON SIDE.

-- GOPHER TORTOISES. >> NONE WERE IDENTIFIED WHEN WE DID THE BASIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

WE STILL HAVEN'T SEEN ANY, BUT WE DIDN'T SCRUTINIZE IT OVER ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY DID.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK TO MR. MATOVINA.

>> SO THIS WAS A SURPRISE. WHO WOULD BELIEVE COULD YOU ADD DEVELOPMENT AND IT WOULD DECREASE TIME, BUT THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT THIS DOES BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE LIGHT IS SET FOR IS SET BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF RIGHT-HAND TURNS. AND SINCE THAT DECREASES THE NUMBER OF RIGHT-HAND TURNS IT PERHAPS DELAYS THE LEFT-HAND TURNS, BUT PROBABLY DOESN'T BECAUSE THE LEFT-HAND TURNS AREN'T BACKING UP RIGHT NOW. THERE'S NO CROSSING TRAFFIC.

SO IF YOU HAVE A LEFT-HAND TURN, YOU JUST -- THERE'S FREE MOVEMENT AS A RIGHT-HAND RIGHT NOW.

IN ANY EVENT, ALL OF MAY CONCERNS ARE ALLAYED AND I'M GLAD BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS TURNING OUT TO BE A GOOD PROPOSAL. REAL GOOD.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. LABANOWSKI. >> I KNOW WE'RE TAKING OVER -- MOVED OVER FOR THE TRAFFIC PART, BUT AFTER THE CBD MEETING THAT I ATTENDED, A LONG MEETING, THERE WERE A COUPLE THINGS BROUGHT UP AT THE MEETING. NUMBER ONE, THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE A SIGN ON SHEARWATER PARKWAY SIDE, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOW-PROFILE SIGN THERE IF POSSIBLE.

I THINK THAT -- THEY'RE HOPING IT WILL STAY AS A SINGLE-STORY BUILDING AND NOT A MULTI-STOREY. THAT WAS -- MULTI-STORY.

THAT WAS THE OTHER COMMENT. OVERALL AS A PROJECT THE CBD WAS

IN FAVOR OF IT. >> OKAY, MR. MAT CONVENIENT

NO. >> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A

MOTION -- MATOVINA -- >> DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON

MR. LABANOWSKI'S STATEMENTS? >> NO, SIR.

VERY REASONABLE STATEMENTS. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT IS -- WE

CAN HANDLE THAT, YES, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT.

MR. MATOVINA. >> MAJOR MODIFICATION 2602 ASHFORD BILLS PUD. MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION, THE ASFORD MILLS PUD TO MODIFY THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TEXT AND MAP SPECIFICALLY FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE PROPERTY AT SHEARWATER PARKWAY AND COUNTY ROAD 210 WEST.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY

MR. MATOVINA. >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY MR. LABANOWSKI. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I THINK WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND

[2. MINMOD 2026-06 Holey Ballz Pickleball & Event Center. Request for a Minor Modification to the IGP Commerce Center Planned Unit Development (Ordinance 2019-69) to allow for the on-site sale and consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in conjunction with a Commercial Recreation facility, specifically located at 190 Thomas Industry Way. ]

THE AGENCY. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER TWO, WE NEED EX-PARTE. IT'S A MINOR MODIFICATION.

THE HOLEY BALLZ PICKLEBALL AND EVENT CENTER.

WE HAVE MS. SPIEGEL. >> YES, I DID A SITE VISIT AND I WAS HONORED TO GET A TOUR BY MR. TOBY CUTTER OF PICKLEBALL, WHICH I HAVE NEVER PLAYED, NOR HAVE SEEN, NOR EXPERIENCED AND NEVER HAVE SEEN A HOLEY BALL BEFORE.

IT WAS A VERY INTERESTING EXPERIENCE.

IT'S A CUTE SITE. I LIKE THE WAREHOUSE IDEA.

SO ANYWAY. >> MR. OLSON.

>> PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. I VISITED THE SITE.

GOT A TOUR, WAS ABLE TO OBSERVE ACTIVITY GOING ON AND THE RESTAURANT OR THE DINING AREA, SO I HAVE TO REPORT THAT ALSO.

>> OKAY, MR. LABANOWSKI. >> YES, I VISITED THE SITE AND

[00:20:03]

ALSO HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH DARCY WHO WAS THE ON-SITE MANAGER, AND ALSO HAD AN E-MAILED DISCUSSION WITH JACOB

SMITH. >> OKAY.

I DID NOT VISIT THE SITE, BUT I HAVE BEEN BY IT MANY TIMES IN THE PAST. AND I SAW IT ON THE AERIAL AND THE MAP. I DECIDED I DIDN'T NEED TO GO SEE IT BECAUSE I KNEW RIGHT WHERE IT WAS.

SO THE FLOOR IS YOURS, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS TOBY, ADDRESSES 610 SOUTH LOOP PARKWAY.

ST. AUGUSTINE. THE 190 THOMAS INDUSTRY WAY IS THE ADDRESS. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR OUR REQUEST TODAY. SO THERE IS OUR LITTLE HOLEY BALL AS MISS JUDY POINTED OUT. WE ARE HERE TODAY REQUESTING A MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW FOR BEER AND WINE TO BE SOLD AT OUR FACILITY, A 2COP LICENSE. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS.

WE'RE AGAIN ASKING FOR THE MINOR MOD FOR ALLOWING BEER AND WINE TO BE SOLD. WE BELIEVE THE ADDITION OF BEER AND WINE WILL HELP US INCREASE OUR FOOD SALES.

IT WILL STRENGTHEN OUR FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY, AND WE ALSO BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES AND AREA THAT WE'RE IN. THE PUD ITSELF CURRENTLY ZONED FOR BEER AND WINE AND ALCOHOL SALES WITHIN THE MANUFACTURING OF SAME, DISTILLERIES, BREWERIES, AND WINERIES.

SO WHILE THAT IS NOT THE SAME USE, AND WE AGREE THAT'S CORRECT, IT IS A USE OF ALCOHOL WITHIN THE PUD IS ALREADY APPROVED. SO IT'S JUST A SIDE NOTE ON THAT. WE'VE BEEN OPEN SINCE FEBRUARY OF 2026. WE HAVE THREE BUILDINGS.

TWO OF THEM HOUSE OUR COURTS. ONE FIVE COURT BUILDING, ONE FOUR COURT BUILDING. WE HAVE A CLUBHOUSE THAT HAS TWO LARGE BATHROOMS. I THINK THE WOMEN'S BATHROOM HAS NINE STALLS IN IT AND THE MEN'S BATHROOM HAS FIVE.

WE HAVE A SMALL KITCHEN, UNHOODED KITCHEN.

SO IT'S A TURBO CHEF, THAT SORT OF METHODOLOGY FOR COOKING.

WE HAVE A CHECK-IN, AN ORDERING COUNTER THAT SERVES OUR CAFE SERVICE, OUR PRO SHOP, WHICH IS ALSO HOUSED IN THAT SAME AREA WITH PADDLES AND CLOTHING AND HATS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND THERE ARE 20 SEATS IN THAT PRO SHOP OR CLUBHOUSE BUILDING.

OUR CUSTOMERS ARE LARGELY MEMBERS OR GUESTS, BUT PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY THAT COMES TO OUR FACILITY TO PLAY PICKLEBALL HAS TO FILL OUT A FAIRLY IN-DEPTH FORM AND SIGN A BUNCH OF WAIVERS. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION ON OUR CUSTOMERS BECAUSE OF THAT REQUIREMENT.

WE DO LESSONS, AND WE DO SPECIAL EVENTS LIKE TOURNAMENTS OR, FOR EXAMPLE, AS WE SPEAK A GENTLEMAN HAS RENTED ONE OF OUR COURTS TO HOLD A FENCING CLINIC, LIKE, ONGUARD FENCING, NOT FENCES.

THIS IS OUR SITE PLAN. I'M SORRY, IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BLOWN UP A LITTLE BIT. I COULD PROBABLY DO IT IF I KNEW HOW IT WORKED. YOU CAN SEE IN THE BLUE RECTANGLE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT, THAT'S OUR SERVING AREA.

THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE A COUNTER. PEOPLE ORDER THEIR FOOD, CHECK IN TO PLAY PICKLEBALL, BUY MERCHANDISE.

THERE ARE SOME TABLES IN THE AREA THERE THAT THEY CAN SIT, BUT THERE'S ALSO TABLES -- I GUESS I CAN DO SOMETHING HERE SO PEOPLE CAN COME TO A SPECTATOR AREA.

IN THAT AREA PEOPLE CONGREGATE TO WATCH PICKLEBALL, MAYBE TAKE A HOTDOG OVER AND EAT THAT, AND THEN FROM THE SAME SPOT YOU MIGHT GO OUT THIS DOOR ACROSS OVER TO THE SIDEWALK HERE AND ENTER ONE OF THESE SPACES TO PLAY PICKLEBALL MOSTLY, BUT OCCASIONALLY PEOPLE MIGHT BRING SOME FOOD OR A DRINK OVER TO THOSE SPOTS WHILE THEY'RE WATCHING PICKLEBALL.

AND REALLY MORE IMPORTANTLY EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, LET'S SAY FOUR TIMES A MONTH, WE MAY HAVE A SPECIAL EVENT LIKE A TOURNAMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE PEOPLE DO SPECTATE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST REGULAR OPEN PLAY PICKLEBALL.

AND SO THOSE FOLKS MIGHT ALSO BE SPECTATING VERSUS PLAYING PICKLEBALL IN THOSE AREAS. THIS IS, AGAIN, OUR SITE PLAN.

SO THAT'S BASICALLY JUST AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT YOU SAW BEFORE.

THIS IS OUR BATHROOMS, KIND OF BLOWN UP.

YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING THERE.

[00:25:03]

AND I THOUGHT THE TOASTING WINE GLASSES WERE GREAT TO SHOW YOU OUR LOT. BUT THAT'S BASICALLY IT.

THIS IS AN INTERIOR PHOTO OF THE CLUBHOUSE SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S THE RETAIL SECTION, A COUPLE TABLES, SOME CHAIRS.

LARGELY PEOPLE COME IN HERE AND BUY MERCHANDISE OR HAVE A SANDWICH AND A DRINK AFTER PICKLEBALL OR BEFORE.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF OUR FOUR-COURT BUILDING.

SO I AM LOOKING DOWN THE COURTS TO THE LARGER SPECTATOR AREA AT THE VERY FAR END OF THAT PICTURE.

THIS IS OUR FIVE-COURT BUILDING. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S TWO BATHROOMS HERE AND THEN DOWN FURTHER THERE'S ANOTHER BATHROOM IN THERE. AND THAT'S JUST A PICTURE OF OUR EXTERIOR AND OUR PARKING LOT. AND THAT IS WHAT I'VE PREPARED FOR YOU. BUT I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY

QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM BOARD

MEMBERS? >> YEAH.

>> SEEING NONE, ANY -- OH. >> DO IT AGAIN.

>> I'M SORRY. IT DIDN'T -- YOU DIDN'T APPEAR ON THE SCREEN. SORRY.

>> JUST A QUICK -- ON THE ONE BUILDING BY COURT 9, THAT IS PART OF THE PICKLEBALL AREA AS WELL? YOU HAVE TWO OFFICES IN THERE AND A WORKSHOP?

OR IS THAT SEPARATE? >> NO, THAT'S SEPARATE.

>> THAT IS SEPARATE. >> THAT IS SEPARATE.

THE LITTLE SPACE OVER HERE THAT SAYS WAREHOUSE I BELIEVE IS WHAT

CHUCK'S REFERRING TO. >> YEAH.

>> THAT'S MY SHOP. >> OKAY.

THE CONCERN I HAVE IS NORMALLY I THINK WE APPROVE LIQUOR LICENSES FOR A SINGLE BUILDING. THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO COVER MULTI-BUILDINGS, AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE CARRYING BEER AND WINE ACROSS A PARKING LOT. SO IT'S NOT STOPPING ANYONE FROM WALKING OUT, GETTING IN THEIR CAR AND LEAVING WITH A DRINK.

I KNOW THEY'RE MORE THAN LIKELY COMMONSENSE YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT, BUT THAT'S THE CONCERN I HAVE WITH IT GOING FROM ONE

BUILDING TO ANOTHER BUILDING. >> OKAY.

>> WITH THE BEER AND THE WINE. THANK YOU.

>> WHAT I CAN SAY TO THAT, I DEFINITELY RECOGNIZE YOUR CONCERN. IT DOESN'T SEEM COMPLETELY INVALID TO ME. THERE IS A SIDEWALK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD USE TO COMMUTE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND IN THE CASE OF THIS COMMUTE, THAT'S A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. SO THEY TYPICALLY WOULDN'T ENTER THE PARKING LOT TO MOVE IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

THE BUILDING THAT IS CLEARLY A BIT OF A WALK AROUND, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE PEOPLE USING THE SIDEWALK AND WALKING OVER THERE TO CONSUME ALCOHOL. IT'S IMPORTANT TO US TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT ABILITY IN THAT BUILDING.

IS IT IMPORTANT TO US ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS EVERY DAY ALL THE TIME? CLEARLY NOT AS IMPORTANT AS IT WOULD BE WHEN WE WERE HAVING AN EVENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO THE RUB IS THAT, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, I REALLY -- IT WOULD REALLY BE HELPFUL TO OUR BUSINESS TO BE ABLE TO SELL BEER AND WINE THAT COULD BE CONSUMED IN THAT BUILDING.

AND WE FEEL LIKE PEOPLE WILL USE THE SIDEWALK.

I GUESS -- I MEAN, HOW DO YOU STOP SOMEBODY FROM DETOURING AND GOING TO THEIR CAR AND TAKING A ROADIE WITH 'EM? HOPEFULLY THEY FOLLOW THE LAW LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE SHOULD, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD STOP THAT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

>> MS. SPIEGEL. >> WELL, IF I'M HONEST THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY CONCERN I HAD, TOO.

I WONDER ABOUT MAYBE JUST A CHAIN-LINK FENCE ON THE PARKING LOT SIDE ALONG THE SIDEWALK, YOU KNOW, SO PEDESTRIANS -- THIS WAY. YOU JUST GO THIS WAY AND KIND O.

IT'S JUST A THOUGHT. >> I UNDERSTAND.

SOME SORT OF BARRIER. >> EVEN A PSYCHOOGICAL BARRIER.

>> YEAH. >> ALONG THESE POINTS, WINE ONLY, NOT IN THE PARKING LOT. ANYWAY, JUST A THOUGHT.

>> IT'S A POSSIBILITY. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT WOULD WORK. IT'S NOT SO MUCH IN THIS AREA ON THE SIDEWALK THAT I HAVE -- THINK THAT COULD BE USEFUL, BUT PUTTING ONE AT THIS FRONT DOOR THAT ROUTES PEOPLE IS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT INCONVENIENT AND NOT VERY ATTRACTIVE TO TRY TO DO THAT. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT COULD SORT OF FORCE PEOPLE -- CORRAL THEM TO NOT WALK THROUGH

[00:30:02]

THE PARKING LOT. I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY WHEN THEY GOT TO HERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE WOULD THE CORRAL STOP IS MY CONCERN ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THAT PLAN.

BUT CERTAINLY A DECENT IDEA, JUDY.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR MOTION, DISCUSSION.

MR. OLSON. >>

>> OKAY. >> YOU MENTIONED EVENTS.

SAY YOU HAVE LARGE EVENTS THERE. WILL THEY REQUIRE A SEPARATE TYPE OF LICENSE TO HAVE LIQUOR SALES OR LIQUOR AVAILABLE? WILL THEY HAVE CASH BARS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, JUST FOLLOWING UP ON YOUR ORIGINAL CONCEPT SEEMS TO ME TO BE -- HAVE THESE BEER AND WINE BE AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE COMING TO PLAY AND SOCIALIZE AND GET FOOD AT YOUR BAR. WHAT ABOUT EVENTS? HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR LIQUOR TO MENTION?

>> MY UNDERSTANDING -- AND AGAIN, IT'S PROBABLY NOT DEEP ENOUGH TO BE SUPER INFORMATIVE, BUT IF WE ARE A 2COT FACILITY THEN BEER OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO LARGELY MAKES IT DIFFICULT, IF NOT PROHIBITS US FROM HAVING FOUR COT-TYPE ACTIVITY AT OUR FACILITY. SO WE CAN'T BRING IN A BAR TORE THAT FACILITY. AND IT WASN'T -- BAR TO -- IT REALLY ISN'T OUR INTENTION. WE WOULD RATHER NOT DO THAT AND KEEP IT AS BEER AND WINE ONLY, AND IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EVENTS, LARGELY THEY'RE GROUNDED IN A PICKLEBALL EVENT.

LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. LET'S SAY FIDELITY FINANCIAL SERVICES WANTED TO HAVE A SALES CONFERENCE.

THEY WOULD COME, MAYBE DO A BIT OF A PRESENTATION, MAYBE HAVE SOME LUNCH, AND THEN PLAY -- INTRODUCE THEIR SALES TEAM TO PICKLEBALL. THOSE THAT ALREADY KNOW WOULD PLAY ON SOME COURTS. WE'D HAVE AN INTRO TO PICKLEBALL FOR THE OTHER STAFF. THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF AN EVENT WE INTEND TO HOST. OTHER EVENTS ARE LIKE MONEY BALL TOURNAMENTS WHERE PEOPLE COME TO PLAY IN A TOURNAMENT.

DOES IT PRECLUDE AN EVENT THAT'S NOT GROUNDED IN PICKLEBALL? NO. THAT DEFINITELY COULD HAPPEN.

>> OKAY, I THINK MAYBE -- I BELIEVE I PROBABLY UNDERSTAND NOW THAT -- OR BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE SAID THAT ASIDE FROM -- WELL, YOU'LL BE SIMPLY SERVING -- OR HAVING AVAILABLE

BEER AND WINE AT YOUR FOOD BAR. >> RIGHT.

>> TO BE SOLD WITH FOOD? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> MS. SPIEGEL. >> YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR ATTORNEY. IF THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE 2COP REGULATIONS AND OUR COUNTY REGULATIONS, WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO, ALCOHOL CAN'T BE CONSUMED OFF SITE.

I MEAN, THAT'S PART OF THE LAW, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

AND SO WOULD REQUESTING A SIGN IN THE FACILITY THAT SELLS THE BEER AND WINE THAT SAYS REMINDER, ACCORDING TO COUNTY AND STATE STATUTE ALCOHOL MUST BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES? WOULD THAT BE OVERKILL? OR WOULD THAT BE A PRUDENT REMINDER SINCE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A GAP IN THE SUPERVISION?

>> YOU GUYS GET TO DECIDE WHAT CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY, BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT FOR ANY OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS.

SO JUST CONSIDER THAT IT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE A NEW PRECEDENT THAT YOU'RE CREATING AND A BURDEN YOU PUT ON THEM THAT YOU

HAVEN'T PUT ON OTHER PEOPLE. >> OKAY IT.

JUST SEEMS THERE'S A -- IT JUST SEEMS THERE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT NUANCE WITH THE TRAVELING FROM ONE PLACE INSTEAD OF JUST TO AN OUTSIDE PLACE. SO THAT'S JUST A QUESTION I HAD.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING THAT OR

IF YOU ARE. >> NOW, I WILL ADD TO THE ANSWER THAT HE POTENTIALLY HAS CIVIL LIABILITY FOR OVERSERVING ANY OF HIS PATRONS. THERE IS SOMETIMES SIGNAGE IN RESTAURANTS THAT HELP TO PROTECT FROM THAT, SO -- MAYBE ADVISABLE

ON JUST HIS OWN -- >> TO COVER HIS OWN HOLEY BALLZ.

>> I THINK ALL THAT SIGNAGE IS APPROPRIATE.

SIGNAGE THAT YOU MUST BE 21 AND THE LITTLE DATA BIRTH SIGN, ALL THE THINGS THAT PRUDENT PEOPLE WOULD WAN.

>> JUST TO KEEP YOURSELF COVERED.

>> , NO EXACTLY. WENT THROUGH ALL THIS EFFORT TO GET TO THIS STAGE. I'D HATE TO LOSE MY LICENSE BECAUSE WE'RE DOING SOMETHING SILLY.

[00:35:02]

>> ONG. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR -- OKAY.

>> I SEE ONE MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, SO RECOGNIZE THAT PERSON TO COME FORWARD.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO GIVE YOU ARE YOUR COMMENT.

>> I'M FRANCIS GERTLERFRANCES, 213 MARITA ROAD, ST-AUGUSTIN, 32086. I DIDN'T COME HERE FOR THIS PARTICULAR REASON, BUT MY QUESTION -- I HAVE A QUESTION TE BETWEEN HAVING LIQUOR LICENSE OR BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR PICKLEBALL COURTS COMPARED TO BOWLING ALLEYS OR TOP GOLF?

THAT WAS MY QUESTION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO ONE ELSE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULDN'T IT

ADDRESS THAT OR NOT, BUT -- >> I DON'T THINK I WANT TO.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE BACK IN THE BOARD IN THE AGENCY FOR MOTION AND DISCUSSION. MR. MATOVINA.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINOR MODIFICATION 2026-06 BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MATOVINA.

IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

>> MR. GREEN SECONDS. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

CONGRATULATIONS. >> THANK YOU.

ONE SIDE NOTE. I NOTICED ON THE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPROVAL TO THE MINOR MODIFICATION IS NOT TRANSFERABLE IN ANY WAY. IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY WE COULD ADD THAT IN CASE AT SOME POINT I SELL IT? IT SEEMS INTERESTING THAT SOMEBODY FOR THE EXACT SAME BUSINESS AND THE EXACT SAME REASON WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR THE SAME MODIFICATION TO THAT ZONING? IF THAT'S NOT OCTOBER, THAT'S COMPLETELY FINE -- NOT OKAY.

>> I WISH YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BEFORE WE VOTED.

>> THERE YOU GO. >> SO JACOB, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT? I DON'T THINK WE CAN CHANGE IT

AT THIS POINT. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. >> IT'S WITHIN YOUR POWER TO CHANGE IT. YOU CAN RECONSIDER THE VOTE AND CHANGE IT IF YOU DESIRE TO DO THAT.

>> I DON'T MIND CHANGING IT PERSONALLY.

BUT WHAT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD?

MR. MATOVINA. >> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER JACOB IN THE PAST IF WE GENERALLY MADE THEE TRANSFERABLE.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE -- MADE THESE.

>> SO AGAIN, JACOB SMITH, FOR THE RECORD.

THE ONLY POSSIBLE ISSUE THAT I SEE WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS THAT IF THE ALCOHOL SALES IS GENERATING SOME SORT OF NUISANCE OR SO FORTH, RIGHT, YOU'RE ALLOWING IT TO GO IN PERPETUITY BY BEING TRANSFERABLE. IT IS OTHERWISE FINE TO DO.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY COMMON FOR ALCOHOL LICENSES TO HAVE THEM BE TRANSFERABLE, BUT IT IS OTHERWISE ALLOWED.

BUT THAT WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IS YOU DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS OR WORKS WELL FOR THE COMMUNITY. AND SO GOING OUT INTO -- IT CAN BE TRANSFERRED DEFINITELY ULTIMATELY AT THAT POINT.

SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

>> SO YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE DO NOT ALLOW TRANSFER?

>> NO RECOMMENDATION. JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

>> OKAY. JUST A STATEMENT.

>> THAT IT IS -- YOU KNOW, THAT IS ONE OF THE ONE OF THE REASONS THAT ALCOHOL TRANSFERABILITY IS TYPICALLY NOT INCLUDED -- THAT

IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT -- >> OKAY.

MR. GREEN. >> I SEE BOTH SIDES OF THIS, BUT NORMALLY I THINK WE DO -- YOU KNOW, IT'S DIFFERENT IF IT'S -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MOBILE HOME THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE FOR TITLE.

THIS IS AN ALCOHOL-TYPE SALE. SO I DO BELIEVE THAT I MEAN, WE'VE HAD -- REMEMBER THE RESTAURANT -- I HATE TO SAY IT. TOWN OF A1A SOUTH AROUND CRESCENT BEACH. I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S BEEN IN HERE AT LEAST FOUR OR FIVE TIMES.

AND WE NORMALLY JUST -- I HATE TO SAY JUST SORT OF RUBBER-STAMP

IT. >> UNDERSTOOD.

>> IF IT'S, YOU KNOW -- >> IF I COULD WITHDRAW THE

REQUEST, I WOULD. >> AS A BUSINESS PERSON, IT IS A

SELLING POINT FOR YOUR BUSINESS. >> CORRECTED.

>> I TOTALLY GET IT -- CORRECT. >> BUT WE VERY SELDOMLY DENY THEM. I WON'T BE HERE PROBABLY WHEN THAT HAPPENS, MAYBE MOST OF US. THAT SORT OF THE WAY -- AS A BUSINESSPERSON DON'T LET IT FEAR YOU THAT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

[00:40:01]

>> I WAS TOTALLY OKAY WITH IT. I JUST THOUGHT I'D ASK THE POSSIBILITY. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY NOT IT. MAKES SENSE.

>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IF YOU GET READY TO SELL YOUR BUSINESS YOU CAN ALWAYS COME IN HERE AHEAD OF TIME, I ASSUME, AND SEND IT ON TO THE NEW OWNER BEFORE THEY SIGN ON THE DOTTED

LINE. >> EXCELLENT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA, YOU HAVE A COMMENT?

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY I'M NOT PLANNING ON RECONSIDERING MY MOTION. YOU KNOW, THE USE COULD -- IT MIGHT STILL QUALIFY AS CURRENT USE, BUT THEY COULD INTRODUCE PERHAPS AN INDOOR GUN RANGE THERE.

IN WHICH CASE WE NOW HAVE ALCOHOL ALLOWED WITH AN INDOOR GUN RANGE. SO I'M NOT GOING TO RECONSIDER

MY MOTION. >> GOOD REASON.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. MR. MATOVINA.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD THAT WE'RE LEAVING THE

MOTION AS IS. >> EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. APPRECIATE IT.

[3. COMM 2025-72 3440 Agricultural Center Drive (Warehouse). Request for Site Plan Approval to allow for the build out of two warehouse/office buildings totaling 34,000 square feet with associated infrastructure, located on property within that portion of lands rezoned by Ordinance 1987-01 to Industrial Warehousing (IW) with conditions, specifically located at 3440 Agricultural Center Drive. ]

>> GOOD LUCK WITH IT. >> THANK YOU.

ITEM NUMBER 3, MR. LAHTI, THIS IS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OFF AGRICULTURAL CENTER DRIVE. SO LET'S GO TO EX-PARTE.

MS. SPIEGEL. >> YES, I DID A SITE VISIT AS MUCH AS I COULD. IT WAS KIND OF A FENCE-IN PROPERTY, BUT I DID DRIVE OUT THERE.

>> MR. GREEN. >> I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND SOMEWHAT WITH THIS 1972 WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY PASSED BACK THEN. SO THAT'S ALL.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI? >> YES, I VISITED THE SITE AS

WELL. >> MR. OLSON.

>> I DID A SITE VISIT. >> I'VE BEEN OUT THERE ■MANY TIMES, BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS.

SO THE FLOOR IS YOURS, SIR. >> THANK YOU, MATT LAHTI, GULFSTREAM DESIGN GROUP 2225-A1A SOUTH.

WE ARE HERE PRESENTING THE SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH COM 2025-72. ALSO KNOWN AS 3440 AGRICULTURAL CENTER DRIVE. SITE IS ABOUT 2.06 ACRES LOCATED IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA WEST OF 95 SOUTH OF STATE ROAD 16.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS ABOUT 34,000 SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSE, OFFICE FLEX SPACE. SO IN THE MIXED-USE DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE IN THIS ZONING ORDINANCE OF 1987, HERE IS A COPY OF OUR SITE PLAN, BUT THE STORM WATER POND AT THE REAR. HAMMERHEAD -- BLESS YOU.

HAMMERHEAD WITH PARKING. AND TWO BUILDINGS ALONG THE ACCESS DRIVE THERE. JUST A BLOW-UP HERE SHOWING THE WET DETENTION FACILITY AND THEN THE TWO BUILDINGS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE. THAT BUILDING'S ABOUT 10,000 SQUARE FEET. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IT'S GOT ABOUT 24,000 SQUARE FEET. THERE'S PORTION OF THAT ONE THAT ARE TWO STORY. HERE'S AN AERIAL OF THE PHOTO.

AERIAL PHOTO THERE. PRETTY TIP CYCLE WITH THE REST.

DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA -- TYPICAL.

AND AGAIN WE'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE FROM 1987. HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU

MAY HAVE. >> ANY QUETIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? MR. OLSON.

>> YES, WHAT TYPE OF TENDENCIES ARE YOU ANTICIPATING AND PLANNING THIS SITE AND I GUESS WILL SOME OF THE TENDENCIES REQUIRE TRUCK MOVEMENT, SIZE OF TRUCKS, OR SISTEROF A TYPE OF TENANCY THAT REALLY DOESN'T ANTICIPATE -- OR IS THIS A TYPE -- A LOT OF HAULING IN AND OUT? GENERALLY WHAT TYPES OF TENANTS ARE YOU PLANNING THIS BUILDING

FOR? >> HONESTLY, OUR CLIENT'S LOOKING FOR FLEX SPACE HERE. I BELIEVE THESE WOULD MOSTLY BE PICKUP TRUCKS AND DELIVERY TRUCKS.

I DON'T KNOW, THOUGH. THIS WOULD BE IN THEORY.

ANYTHING THAT COULD BE USED WITHIN THE IW ZONING DISTRICT.

>> SO YOU'RE JUST -- FOR DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF PARKING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE TENANTS, YOU'RE BASICALLY USING WHATEVER THE HANDBOOK OF THE COUNTY OR CODES FOR REQUIRED PARKING PER SQUARE FOOT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

>> YES, SIR. THE PARKING IS BASED, LEAST IN THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, ON ONE SPACE PER 3,000 SQUARE FEET.

FOR THE WAREHOUSE. SO IT WOULD HAVE A PARKING TABLE ASSOCIATED WITH IT AS THE BUILD-OUTS CAME.

THAT WOULD BE ADJUSTED WITH STAFF.

>> OKAY. SO IT'S TOTALLY SPECK.

[00:45:01]

>> YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

SPEC. >> MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> THIS IS MORE FOR STAFF. IS THERE ANYTHING PLANNED FOR 208 AND THAT INTERSECTION? DOES ANYONE KNOW?

>> I SEE DICK DE SOUZA COMING FORWARD.

I ASSUME HE'LL ANSWER THAT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENCY.

DICK DE SOUZA. THERE ARE NO CURRENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FOR THIS AREA OF 208, NOR DO I BELIEVE DOES ANY OF THE DRT WORK ASSOCIATED WITH IT REACH THIS FAR ALONG 208 FOR ANY OF THE REALIGNMENT WORK.

AND SO IT WOULD JUST REMAIN AS IS.

>> OKAY. MY CONCERN WAS EVERYTHING IS BEING PLANNED DOWN AGRICULTURAL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE DOWN THERE. IT'S GOING TO BE GROWING MORE AND MORE. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE INTERSECTION. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY.

OH, MR. MATOVINA. >> CAN MAKE A MOTION?

>> SURE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN FOR COMM COMMERCIAL 202572 3440 AGRICULTURAL CENTER DRIVE BASED ON TWO FINDINGS OF FACT AND ONE CONDITION PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 1987-01 PROVIDED IN A STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. MATOVINA, SECOND BY MR. LABANOWSKI. I WILL SAY THAT THE TRAFFIC THERE AT 208 AND 16 IS A MESS, BUT I DON'T REALLY SEE HOW WE CAN VOTE AGAINST THIS. SO -- ALL RIGHT.

LET'S VOTE. PATS UNANIMOUSLY.

[4. SUPMIN 2026-01 Carter Mobile Home. Request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 2.03.08 of the Land Development Code, to allow for the placement of a Manufactured/Mobile Home in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning, specifically located at 1015 West 15th Street. ]

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. LAHTI.

NEXT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, MR. TRENNIS, CARTER MOBILE

HOME, EX-PARTE. >> YES, I HIS VIT THE -- VISITED

THE SITE. >> MR. OLSON.

>> I VISITED. >> ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE OTHER, THE FLOOR IS YOURS, SIR.

>> ALL RIGHT. MY NAME IS RRENNIS CARTER, 210 MIDDLE LANE, UNIT 301 IN FLORIDA.

32084 -- TRENNIS -- I'M REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE FOR A MOBILE HOME, SPECIAL USE PERMIT. RIGHT HERE WE HAVE THE FUTURE LANDMARKS DISTRICT. MIXED USE.

WE HAVE THE ZONING. JUST A LOCATION.

IT WOULD BE JUST EAST OF HOMES T WOULD BE JUST NORTH OF 312, RUN-OFF -- EAST OF HOMES -- AND THIS WOULD BE THE AERIAL.

I'M OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> YES, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE FIRST MAP YOU HAD UP THERE.

NO, NOT THAT ONE. MOVE FORWARD SOME MORE.

I CAN SEE IT THERE. THERE'S THREE LOTS THERE OR IS

THAT ONE? >> THERE'S --

>> THERE YOU GO. 2 BE THERE'S THREE LOTS.

-- THERE'S THREE LOTS. THEY'RE 40 -- THEY'RE 50 BY 150.

THE FURTHER YOU GO TO THE RIGHT IT, GROWS A LITTLE MORE.

>> SO IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A SINGLE --

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> MR. OLSON.

>> YEAH, THAT'S AN AREA ALONG 15TH STREET IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS A OPEN STORM DRAINAGE DITCH GOING ALONG THE ROAD.

I GUESS YOU'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT AS FAR AS DEVELOPING AND ENTRANCE, SOME TYPE OF CULVERT THROUGH THAT.

>> YES. >> BUT ON THE SITE, VERY HEAVILY VEGETATED SITE RIGHT NOW. DOES THAT SITE DRAIN TOWARD THE -- GUARD 15TH STREET FROM A GRADE STAND POINTED -- GRADE -- OR IS THE DRAINAGE THE OTHER DIRECTION?

>> SO I WALK IT A LOT BECAUSE THERE IS A THERE SO I WALK IT A LOT. IT DOESN'T DRAIN.

IT KIND OF LIKE -- IT REALLY -- IT'S REALLY LIKE LEVEL.

[00:50:02]

MOST OF IT IS LEVEL. IT DOESN'T REALLY -- IT MIGHT FALL BACK TOWARDS THE POND. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DRAIN TO THE

DITCH RIGHT HERE. >> ELEVATION.

WILL YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL WORK FOR ELEVATION ISSUES AND/OR FOR

THE SEPTIC TANK INSTALLATION? >> SO THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD DEAL WITH WITH THE DEVELOPER -- I MEAN, THE MOBILE HOME PLACE, AND THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT.

>> OKAY. AND I GUESS THE CITY FOR PERMITTING. SO WE'RE SIMPLY DOING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ACTUALLY THE LAND USE AND NOTHING ELSE

TODAY. >> YESES.

>> YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU -- YES, SIR. >> MS. SPIEGEL.

>> YES, THANK YOU, SIR. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. YOU JUST WANTED TO COMMENT.

YOUR APPLICATION WAS BEAUTIFUL. I LOVE THAT THIS IS KIND OF SENTIMENTAL AND IT'S FAMILY LAND AND THAT YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO REALLY PRESERVE THE FEEL OF IT AND YOU'RE GOING TO PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS YOU CAN. I JUST WANT TO SAY I HONOR THAT AND REALLY WISH YOU THE BEST ON THIS.

>> THANK YOU. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> WE HAVEN'T HAD PUBLIC COMMENT.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?

SEEING NONE, MS. SPIEGEL. >>

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MINOR 20206-1 UPON EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AND 11 CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE

STAFF REPORT. >> ALL RIGHT.

WAS MR. GREEN GOING TO SECOND THAT?

>> I'LL SECOND IT AND I SEE THIS IS TRANSFERABLE, RIGHT?

OKAY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. I'LL LET STAFF DECIDE WHO SECONDED IT. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PEOPLE ARE ALREADY VOTING.

ALL RIGHT. LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO PASS UNANIMOUSLY. AND IT DOES.

[5. ZVAR 2026-06 507 Third Street. A request for a Zoning Variance to Section 6.01.03.E.3 of the Land Development Code to allow for a Front Yard setback of fifteen (15) feet in lieu of the required twenty-five (25) feet to accommodate construction of a single-family dwelling in Residential, Single-Family (RS-3) zoning. ]

CONGRATULATIONS. >> THANK YOU, Y'ALL.

HAVE A GOOD DAY. >> YOU, TOO.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A ZONING VARIANCE ON THIRD STREET. MR. MILLER, ZACH MILLER, IS THE PRESENTER AND LET'S GET EX-PARTE.

MS. SPIEGEL. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

YES, I DID A SITE VISIT AND WHILE I WAS ON THE SITE VISIT I MET WITH A BROKE LUCAS AND SPOKE ON THE PHONE WITH SCOTT LUCAS WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

AND THEN I RECEIVED A CALL EARLIER TODAY FROM ATTORNEY JAMES WHITE HOUSE JUST ABOUT SOME CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORS

HAVE. >> MR. OLSON.

>> I VISITED THE SITE AND WALKED IT A COUPLE DAYS AGO.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI. >> I VISITED THE SITE AND ALSO HAD A DISCUSSION WITH JAMES WHITE HOUSE AND GOT AN E-MAIL

FROM HOMER. >> MR. GREEN.

>> VISITED THE SITE. I'VE DRIVEN BY IT, BUT NOT IN THE LAST WEEK. AND ALSO HAD A CONVERSATION WITH

MR. WHITEHOUSE. >> I HAD A CALL FROM MR. MILLER YESTERDAY AND WE DISCUSSED THE ITEM AND THEN I ALSO RECEIVED A CALL FROM MR. WHITEHOUSE TODAY WHO SAYS HE'S NOT REALLY AFFILIATED WITH THE PROJECT, BUT JUST WANTED TO RELAY SOME NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS ABOUT IT.

SO THAT'S IT. THE FLOOR IS YOURS,

MR. MILLER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, ZACH MILLER, 3203 OLD BARN COURT AS YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, SINCE I THINK MOST OF YOU DROVE BY IT. THIS IS 507 THIRD STREET.

THIS IS KIND OF A 30,000-FOOT VIEW, I GUESS.

IT'S JUST A LITTLE SOUTH OF CAPS ON THE WATER IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT RESTAURANT. THIS IS A SITE AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, THIS IS THE HOME ON IT AND THE DOCK.

ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER THIS, HOME WAS BUILT I THINK IN THE LATE '60S OR EARLY 1970S.

THIS IS WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY IS IT'S ONE HOME, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY THREE LOTS OF RECORD.

AND ON THIS BLOCK THE THREE LOTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS LOTS EIGHT, NINE, AND SEVEN. THE ONLY THING WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE ON IS LOT EIGHT, WHICH IS THE SORT OF NORTHERN NORTHEAST PORTION THAT MAKES UP THE CURRENT PROPERTY.

THIS IS SORT OF A LAYOUT ON YOUR SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE VARIANCE. LOT SEVEN IS 50 FEET WIDE, BUT IT RUNS NORTH TO SOUTH. EIGHT IS 50 FEET WIDE, BUT IT RUNS EAST TO WEST. AND NINE RUNS EAST TO WEST.

ON THIS PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD THREE.

I'LL EXPLAIN THAT. WE HAVE THE "X" OVER THE HOME ON LOT NINE THAT WAS REQUESTED BY STAFF TO MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THIS VARIANCE IS ONLY APPLYING TO LOT EIGHT.

SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S XED OUT. I ACTUALLY WANT TO THANK MR. SMITH AND MS. WILLIAMS. THEY WERE -- THIS WAS ACTUALLY A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH ON THIS AND KIND OF CLARIFYING IT.

WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS LOT SEVEN AND LOT NINE WILL BECOME

[00:55:03]

ONE LOT. AND THAT LOT, THE FRONTAGE WILL BE ON THIRD STREET IT. WILL COMPLY WITH THE ZONING CODE AND ALL THE SETBACKS, AND WE DON'T NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT.

WHAT WE NEED A VARIANCE FOR FOR THIS HOME IS LOT EIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M EXPLAINING TO YOU.

THIS IS TO CLARIFY, THIS IS ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THIS IS THE LAYOUT OF THAT LOT. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET DEEP COMING OFF THIRD STREET. WHY DO WE NEED A VARIANCE? LOT EIGHT AND ALL LOTS IN THIS AREA -- LOT EIGHT WAS ORIGINALLY A CORNER LOT. THAT'S THIRD STREET TO THE NORTH AND THEN THERE WAS A BAY STREET THAT WAS ALONG THE RIVER.

AT LEAST BACK THEN. THE -- WHEN LOT EIGHT ASORIGINALLY CREATED IT WAS A CORNER LOT -- EIGHT WAS -- THE HOUSE WOULD LIKELY FACE BAY STREET, NOT THIRD STREET.

UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS, OUR FRONT YARD WOULD BE ON THIRD STREET, AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THIS LOT IS ONLY 50 FEET DEEP AND YOUR ZONING REQUIREMENTS SHALL THAT THE FRONT YARD HAS TO BE 25 FEET -- ARE THAT -- UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING CODE, BECAUSE BAY STREET WAS CLOSED, AND THIS IS NO LONGER A CORNER LOT.

WE WOULD HAVE TO DO 25-FEET SETBACK FROM THIRD STREET.

IF YOU DO 25 FEET SET BACK FROM THIRD STREET AND YOU HAVE THE REAR YARD SETBACK, WHETHER THAT'S CONSIDERED A SIDE OR FRONT YARD, YOU'RE ONLY LEFT WITH SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 15 AND 17 BUILDABLE SPACE FOR THE ACTUAL HOME.

SO THAT'S AN EXTREMELY NARROW HOME, PROBABLY NOT BUILDABLE.

CERTAINLY NOT MARKETABLE. SO WHAT ARE WE ASKING FOR RELIEF FOR? THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 25 FEET. WE'RE ASKING TO GO TO 15.

WHAT WE'RE BASICALLYING YOU TO CONSIDER IS THE AREA ALONG THIRD STREET -- BASICALLY ASKING YOU -- IS A SECOND FRONT YARD.

THE SITE PLAN YOU'LL LOOK AT, WE HAVE MORE THAN 25 FEET SET BACK FROM LOT SEVEN, WHICH IS THE OTHER LOT OF RECORD WE'RE USING FOR ACCESS TO LOT NINE. THAT'S GOING TO BASICALLY BE OUR FRONT YARD. THAT'S HOW THE HOUSE WILL BE ORIENTED. AND THEN TREATING IT LIKE A CORNER LOT, WE'D HAVE 15 FEET SETBACK FROM THIRD STREET.

SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THE REDUCTION FOR 25 FEET TO 15 FEET ALONG THIRD STREET AND TREAT THAT AS A CORNER LOT.

AGAIN, I THINK THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT WHEN IT WAS PLANNED BECAUSE WHEN WE HAD BAY STREET BEFORE IT WAS CLOSED IN 1971, THE FRONT YARD WOULD BE ALONG BAY STREET.

YOUR FRONT YARD IS USUALLY CONSIDERED YOUR SHORTEST BORDER.

AND THEN THE CORNER LOT WOULD BE ALONG THIRD STREET.

SO THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY.

15 FEET, A LITTLE OVER, ALONG THIRD STREET, AND THIS BE YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE MORE THAN 25 FEET SETBACK -- AND THEN YOU CAN SEE -- WE THINK THIS WILL BE GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST OF US BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT HOME THAT IS ON THE PROPERTY I THINK IS ONLY SET BACK PROBABLY 10 FEET FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE. UNDER THIS SCENARIO, THE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE SET BACK WELL OVER 50 FEET FROM IT.

SO IT-TWO NEW HOMES, BUT THEY WILL BE PUSHED FURTHER AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND TRY TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THE NEIGHBORS HAVE. I THINK MY CLIENT DID SPEAK WITH MR. LUCAS WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH. HE RELAYED TO ME HE DIDN'T HAVE

ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

MR. LABANOWSKI. >> GO AHEAD.

>> WAITING FOR THE CHAIR. CHAIR.

>> I DIDN'T SEE YOUR LIGHT TURN ON, MR. OLSON.

>> IT'S ON. >> YOUR MIC'S ON, SO GO AHEAD

AND SPEAK. >> I SAW HIS.

>> ALL RIGHT, THERE IT IS. >> YEAH.

OKAY. >> OKAY.

A FEW QUESTIONS. WHO OWNS THESE THREE PARCELS

RIGHT NOW? >> RIGHT NOW I'D ACTUALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE AUTHORIZATION. MY CLIENT IS ALL SUB PROPERTIES.

I THINK WHEN I FILED THE APPLICATION THEY HAD NOT PURCHASED IT, BUT THEY ACTUALLY I THINK HAVE PURCHASED IT NOW.

>> SO ALL THREE PROPERTIES UNDER ONE OWNER.

THE OWNER JUST PURCHASED IT. >> CORRECT.

>> SO THE OWNER -- WHERE THE HARDSHIP IS SOMETHING THE OWNER

JUST ACQUIRED. >> INCORRECT.

THE HARDSHIP WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN BAY STREET WAS CLOSED.

1971. >> WOULDN'T BAY STREET BE ACTUALLY A BENEFIT TO THIS PROPERTY?

>> IF IT WAS STILL -- >> BECAUSE YOU HAVE DIRECT UNCOMPLICATED ACCESS AND FRONTAGE TO THE RIVER WITH

VACATION OF BAY STREET. >> NO, BECAUSE IT MAKES OUR FRONT YARD ON THIRD STREET, WHICH MAKES THE LOT ESSENTIALLY

UNBUILDABLE. >> WELL --

>> YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THESE ARE THREE LOTS.

[01:00:02]

IT'S NOT JUST THREE LOTS. THREE LOTS OF RECORD.

>> BUT THERE'S ONE HOUSE ON THESE THREE LOTS NOW.

>> CORRECTED. >> SO THE HARDSHIP IS NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD -- CORRECT -- MORE THAN ONE HOUSE AGAIN ON THE

THREE LOTS. >> THE HARDSHIP IS THAT YOU'RE THERE, EACH LOT OF RECORD, EACH ONE IS ENTITLED BY LAW TO HAVE

ONE HOME. >> RIGHT.

WE KNOW ABOUT THE 50-FOOT 1929 ORB WHATEVER, '27 -- OR WHATEVER, '27 PLANNING, BUT MOST PEOPLE THAT BUILD HOUSES THAT ARE OF THE KIND THAT PEOPLE WANT 99 YEARS AFTER THAT PLANNING, THE TYPICAL PATTERN IS COMBINING THE LOTS TO BUILD WHAT THEY WANT

TO BUILD. >> RESPECTFULLY TO THAT, I THINK THERE'S SOME 50-FOOT LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT ON IN THIS AREA JUST UP THE STREET ON BOTH FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD.

>> OKAY. WELL, I DON'T WANT TO BELABOUR IT, BUT I JUST THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A STRETCH TO -- BASED ON OUR HARDSHIP STANDARDS THAT WE FOLLOW THAT ARE BASICALLY IN THE -- THAT SOMEONE WOULD ACQUIRE THE LOT -- ORDINANCE -- AND KNOWINGLY ACQUIRE THE HARDSHIP AND EXPECT A VARIANCE FROM IT. BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI. >> SO CURRENTLY THE HOUSE THERE

NOW WILL BE TORN OUT TOTALLY? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. >> THAT HOUSE CURRENTLY IS SETTING 15 FEET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE NOW.

>> YEAH, I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT LESS, BUT --

>> PROBABLY ABOUT A HALF A FOOT LESS.

'CAUSE I WAS ACTUALLY OUT THERE I WAS DOING SOME MEASUREMENTS.

IT'S ALMOST EXACTLY 15 FEET DEPENDING ON --

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 15 FEET FROM THE LOT TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST. THAT'S THE 15-FOOT SETBACK?

>> THE 15-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH PROPERTY LINE.

>> TO THE EXISTING HOUSE. >> FROM THE EAST SIDE.

IS IT THE EAST SIDE? >> SO --

>> FROM THIRD STREET. >> SO THE CURRENT HOME -- YOU'RE

SAYING IT'S ABOUT 15 FEET -- >> 15 FEET SETBACK RIGHT NOW.

>> CORRECT. I THINK IT WAS LESS THAN THAT, I WAS REFERRING TO, ON THE EASTERN SIDE FROM THE SICKLE-FAMILY

PROPERTY -- SINGLE-FAMILY. >> WHERE THE GARAGE IS.

>> CORRECT. >> BUT YOU'RE WANTING THIS -- THE RELIEF ON THE THIRD STREET SIDE.

>> CORRECT, TO BE 15 FEET, SUBSTANTIALLY WHAT'S ALREADY

THERE. >> NOW, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT ANOTHER HOME IN THERE. ACTUALLY IT'S GOING TO BE LARGER AND IT'S GOING TO BE ACTUALLY THE WAY THAT'S SET UP RIGHT NOW HOW MANY OF THOSE TREES ARE YOU GOING TO BE TAKING OUT OF THERE?

>> UM -- >> THERE'S SOME GOOD -- I KNOW YOU HAVE TO TAKE SOME OF THEM OUT BECAUSE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THEM THAT ARE INTO THE FOUNDATION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME OUT. BUT THERE'S STILL A LOT OF

MATURE TREES IN THERE. >> ON THE ACCESSWAY, I DON'T THINK MANY SINCE MOSTLY THAT'S WHERE THE GARAGE IS AND HOME

ALREADY. >> TO THE RIVER SIDE.

TO THE RIVER SIDE THE MATURE TREES ARE THERE.

>> WE'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD SETBACK FROM OUR MIEN HIGH WATER MARK TO THE RIVER. I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE

MANY TREES REMOVED. >> WHAT IS THE SETBACK THERE?

>> TO THE MIEN HIGH WATER MARK? LET'S SEE IF I CAN'T -- JACOB JUST INFORMED ME IT'S 35. I CAN'T READ THAT THAT WELL.

>> OKAY, YEAH. >> IT'S HARD TO READ.

>> I WOULD JUST -- BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THAT IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU COULD SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE TO AT LEAST

KEEP THE CANOPY IN THERE. >> I THINK THAT'S THE GOOD THING ABOUT OUR DESIGN, AT EAST ON THE EASTERN LOT, WE'RE NOT BUILDING ON THAT, AND WE'RE ABLE TO KEEP I THINK AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE AND THIS ORIENTATION KEEPS A LOT OF THE AREA BETWEEN US ABDOMEN THE MEAN HIGH WATER MARK.

LOTS OF THE TREES ON IT ARE WORTH MORE THAN LOTS WITHOUT

TREES ON THEM. >> OKAY.

THAT'S ALL I HAD. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? OKAY. MR. GREEN RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO SPEAK LATER. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? COME FORWARD.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'VE GOT THREE

MINUTES. >> TIM PAR TELL, 4230 MYRTLE

STREET. >> KATIE BROWER.

4281 MYRTLE STREET. ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.

I LIVE RIGHT BEHIND THE PROPERTY.

AND I'M GIVING HIM MY PERMISSION TO USE MY TIME.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. KEVIN PARTEL, 4230 MYRTLE STREET. HELLO, HENRY.

JAMES WHITE HOUSE CALLED YOU ON MY BEHALF.

I'VE LIVED YOU IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 32 YEARS.

I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY 38 YEARS AGO.

[01:05:02]

AND I WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE YOUNG MAN THAT JUST SAT DOWN FOR BLOWING SMOKE UP YOUR DRESS. I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTIONS ON WHAT HE'S DOING AND PART OF THE REASON HE NEEDS THE SETBACK IS BECAUSE THIS IS ROUTINE FOR THEM.

ARE THEY GOING TO SAVE ANY TREES? NO, SIR. THEY TURNED MY NEIGHBORHOOD INTO A BED AND BREAKFAST IT. USED TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY USED TO CALL ME -- IT USED -- THE MAYOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NOW THEY CALL ME THE SHARE I SHF BECAUSE WE HAVE EVIL PEOPLE TRYING TO EXPLOIT OUR NICE LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'VE HAD 100 BY 100-FOOT LOTS FOREVER. FRANK, YOU SEEN AND I TOOK THESE GENTLEMEN TO COURT TO TELL THEM THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T SPLIT THESE LOTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON THEM.

WELL, WE WOUND UP IN THE FIFTH JUDICIAL COURT OF APPEAL IN DAYTONA AND THEY SAID GO BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE, BUT IT WASN'T MEANT FOR CUTTING OFF OUR 50-FOOT LOTS BACK DOWN TO 50-FOOT. IT WAS ABOUT THE RESTRICTIONS THAT IF THEY'RE NOT RENEWED EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT TWO LOTS ARE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ONE HOUSE SO AS THIS YOUNG MAN SAYS, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT.

NO, YOU DON'T. IT WAS DEED RESTRICTIONS AND HONORED FOREVER. NOT FOR, WHAT, 30 YEARS? IF YOU DON'T DO THEM RIGHT. THEY HAD AN ATTORNEY DOWNTOWN THAT KNEW THAT AND THEY PLOTTED AGAINST US.

THAT'S WHY I FOUGHT 'EM. NOW I'M FIGHTING FOR MORE.

SO HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO CAPS? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT GO UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD? I LIVE THERE. I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 32 YEARS.

AND YOU'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE THREE MORE HOUSES? THEY'RE TELLING YOU TWO. THEY'RE BLOWING SMOKE UP YOUR DRESS. THEY'RE GOING THERE.

THEY RAPE THE PLACE. LOOK AT THE LAST TWO HOUSES THEY TORE DOWN ON THIRD STREET, WHICH I DRIVE BY EVERY SINGLE DAY, AND YOU'LL SEE, WHERE ARE THE TREES? WELL, THEY COULDN'T PUT A HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 10-FOOT SETBACK SO THEY LEFT THE TREES.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS CUT TO THE GROUND.

THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD. BRING IT TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

JESSE WHO IS ASLOP, THEY'RE NOT NICE PEOPLE.

I DEALT WITH THEM, TOO. AND YOU'RE GOING TO LET HIM HAVE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THIS YOUNG MAN SAYS, OH, NO, IT WAS PLOTTED THAT WAY. NO, GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. IT WAS PLOTTED THREE LOTS FOR ONE HOUSE. WELL, WE WANT THREE HOUSES OR MAYBE EVEN TWO. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S CONDUCIVE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS YOU'LL REQUIRE.

NO. DID IT CREATE -- DID THEY CREATE

THEIR OWN HOARDSHIP? >> YES.

-- HARDSHIP. >> DO THEY HAVE UNIQUENESS TO THE PROPERTY? NO.

UH, WHAT AM I MISSING? THIS IS CRAZY.

THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY'VE TAKEN 100 BY 100-FOOT LOTS, TORN THE HOUSES DOWN 'CAUSE, OH, THEY'RE 30 YEARS OLD.

THEY'RE NOT WORTH ANYTHING. THIS AND THAT.

I CAN PUT TWO BRAND-NEW HOUSES UP CHARGE YOU A MILLION DOLLARS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I'VE GOT TO PUT UP WITH THAT? NO, BRING IT TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I STILL HAVE THREE MINUTES, CORRECT?

>> NO, YOU DO NOT. >> I'M SORRY.

SHE GAVE ME HER THREE MINUTES. >> IT'S NOT A SYSTEM LIKE THAT WHERE SOMEONE CAN GRANT YOU ANOTHER THREE MINUTES.

IF -- >> WELL, I KNOW IF I WAS ABDOMEN ATTORNEY AND I HAD -- AN ATTORNEY AND I WAS AN ATTORNEY AND SAID I HAD A PIECE OF PAPER THAT I'D GET EXTRA TIME.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME IS THIS. >> IN ORDER TO HAVE EXTRA TIME YOU HAVE TO HAVE SEVERAL -- I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THEY'RE NOT NICE PEOPLE. THEY'RE EXPLOITING MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IF YOU ALLOW IT BRING IT TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SEE HOW MUCH YOU LIKE IT.

HAVE A NICE DAY. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR KINDNESS IN ASKING QUESTIONS.

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES -- NOW JUST ADDRESS THE GENTLEMAN THAT'S SITTING DOWN, IF THE WOMAN THAT GAVE YOU THE THREE MINUTES WANTS TO SPEAK, SHE SEAS ALLOWED TO SPEAK FOR HER THREE MINUTES -- SHE'S ALLOWED --

>> IT OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE UP. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MAUREEN O'CONNOR, 4260 MYRTLE STREET. I LIVE RIGHT BY THIS HOUSE.

THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE HAS CONCERNS WITH ME OVER THE FACT, AS KEVIN STATED, THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER AND SOME OTHERS WILL TAKE PROPERTY, GET A VARIANCE, SEPARATE IT AND THEN BUILD A NUMBER OF HOUSES. THIS ONE IS MORE UNIQUE AND IN MY OPINION MORE -- HAS FOB MORE CONSIDERED BECAUSE WHERE IT IS -- HAS TO BE MORE. ONE, IT'S AN RS3 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. IT'S A WATERFRONT STATUS.

THE WATERFRONT SETBACKS, BECAUSE THIS PARCEL SITS ON INTERCOASTAL, IT'S SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC COASTAL INSTRUCTIONS AND IT IS A FLOOD ZONE. THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

CURRENTLY THIS PROPERTY HAS THREE BEDROOM HOUSE, TWO CAR GARAGE AND CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENT.

THE REQUEST FOR THE ZONING REQUIREMENT IS 15 FEET IN LIEU OF THE 25 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING RESIDENTIAL. GIVEN THE FACT, THE QUESTION IS WHY IS VARIANCE NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE? THE ANSWER MAY LIE IN A PROPERTY

[01:10:01]

DESCRIPTION LISTING ON THE REALTOR'S WEBSITE.

DIRECT INTERCOASTAL FRONT PROPERTY.

WITH A DEEP WATER LIFT ON MULTIPLE LOTS.

AND THIS IS AN AMAZING PIECE OF PROPERTY.

YOU COULD HAVE YOUR OWN BEACH. THERE ARE THREE PLOTTED LOTS, 100 FEET. KEEP THE TWO LOTS ON THE WATER, AND SELL THE BACK LOTS AND DEVELOP IT.

ANOTHER IDEA WOULD BE TO HAVE TWO INTERCOASTAL FRONT LOTS, ET CETERA. BASICALLY AS KEVIN ALSO STATED, WHAT IS NOW BEING PRESENTED OFTEN HAS CHANGES, SOME OF THEM VERY SIGNIFICANT. YOU CAN SEE HERE AS -- I'M SORRY THE PROPERTY IS HEAVILY TREED. SOME OF THESE TREES ARE VERY OLD. HERE IS THE SITE TO THE INTERCOASTAL. AND AFTER SAYING JUST IN SUMMARY, THE SAYING GOES IF HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF, THERE WILL BE ONE OR TWO MORE REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FOR REDUCED SETBACK. I WOULDN'T IT EMPHASIZE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS ON THE EXTRA COASTAL -- INTRACOASTAL ON A SEPTIC SYSTEM. THEY HAVE WATER SUPPLY ISSUES AND SHORTAGE OF SEWER AVAILABILITIES.

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING YEARS FOR IT.

SEPTIC SYSTEMS ALONG THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAYS IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY ARE SUBJECT TO SOME OF THE STRICTEST ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IN FLORIDA DUE TO THEIR PROXIMITY TO TITLE INFLUENCE -- ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

MY CONCERN IS MORE THAN ONE HOUSE IS HERE THAT'S MORE THAN ONE SEPTIC SYSTEM, WHAT WILL THE EFFECT BE ON THE INTERCOASTAL?

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPRECIATE IT. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> JOAN MCCUTCHEON. 466 POLMAN CIRCLE, ST-AUGUSTIN.

32084. I WASN'T PLANNING ON SPEAKING TODAY, BUT I AM A REALTOR AND I AM REPRESENTING A BUYER FOR THIS EXACTED PROPERTY, AND THEIR INTENTION -- EXACT PROPERTY -- IS TO BUILD A BRAND-NEW SINGLE HOME, NOT DIVIDE IT.

THEY'RE GOING TO COMBINE ALL THREE OF THE PARCELS INTO ONE LOT. AND THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, BUT OUR DUE DILIGENCE EXPIRES THIS SUNDAY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT THAT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS NOW, BUT IT ONLY STARTED AFTER THE ATTORNEY ALREADY FILED, YOU KNOW, HIS APPLICATION.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS.

>> NO NEED TO BE NERVOUS. IT'S UNUSUAL FOR US TO ASK QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS, BUT I THINK WE'LL ALLOW IT CERTAINLY.

MR. OLSON. >> YES.

BASED ON WHAT YOU TESTIFIED FOR -- THERE HASN'T BEEN A CLOSURE OF A PROPERTY? THE PROPERTY TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS STILL FOR SALE AND YOU HAVE A CLIENT THAT HAS IT UNDER CONTRACT AND IS IN A DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD?

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> SO THEY HAVE A CLOSING DATE TOWARDS THE END OF JUNE IS WHAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED IN THE CONTRACT.

AND THEY HAVE MADE THEIR BINDER DEPOSIT AND WE'RE JUST WORKING THROUGH THE DUE DILIGENCE RIGHT NOW WITH THE BUILDER TO SEE WHAT WOULD FIT ON THAT PROPERTY ON THE THREE PARCELS.

>> AND IT DOESN'T INVOLVE A VARIANCE AND IT WOULD BE UTILIZING -- IT WOULDN'T BE ESSENTIALLY -- IT WOULD BE USING THE COMBINED PROPERTY THE WAY IT IS NOW?

>> UM, YES. SO MY KNOWLEDGE -- AND AGAIN, WE HAVE HAVEN'T CONFIRMED THE EXACT FLOOR PLAN WITH THE BUILDER.

>> OKAY, YES. >> THEY'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT. WE HAVEN'T APPLIED TO THE -- THE BUYERS HAVEN'T APPLIED TO THE COUNTY OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY YET. BUT IT WOULD BE ONE SINGLE FISHERMANLY HOME THAT WOULD BE HOOKED UP TO SEWER AND WATER -- FAMILY -- AS WE WERE TOLD BY THE BUILDER IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE PROPERTY. AND, YES, I MEAN --

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION. >> SURE.

>> ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? IN THE AUDIENCE?

>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM ONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

IT'S WHEN THEY GET INTO THE AIRBNBSS.

>> COULD YOU COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU.

YOU CAN USE ANY MICROPHONE. THERE'S --

>> THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE. >> MY NAME IS KATIE, 4281 MYRTLE STREET. RIGHT BEHIND THE PROPERTY.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ONE-STORY HOUSE.

I DON'T CARE HOW BIG IT IS. BUT IT'S WHEN WE GET INTO THESE

[01:15:02]

AIRBNBS THAT THEY'RE CHOKING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I LIVE RIGHT ON THAT CORNER. RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF THIRD AND MYRTLE. WE'RE ALREADY BEING KILLED WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT GOES TO CAPS. BUT CAPS IS A RESTAURANT.

THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THIS IS JUST GOING TO ADD MORE TO IT. AND THAT'S THE REASON I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. I DON'T HAVE ALL MY -- I DON'T HAVE THINGS IN LINE LIKE THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE DO, BUT I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ONE BIG HOUSE. IT'S THE IDEA OF HAVING AIRBNBS AGAIN AND THAT'S WHAT THOSE THREE HOUSES WILL TURN TO.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPRECIATE THAT. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? IF NOT, MR. MILLER, YOU'RE -- GENTLEMAN I WANT TO THANK THE FIRST PERSON WHO SPOKE FOR CALLING ME YOUNG. I'LL BE 45 IN SEPTEMBER.

SO I APPRECIATE IT. I THINK HE SAID IT THREE OR FOUR

TIMES. >> THAT'S PRETTY YOUNG.

THAT'S VERY YOUNG. >> YEAH.

AGAIN, I THINK WHAT THE NICE LADY JUST SPOKE WAS REFERRING TO WAS THE SECOND LOT, WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THIS VARIANCE THAT WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN COMBINING THOSE TWO SO THAT IT HAS FRONTAGE BECAUSE WHEN BAY STREET WAS CLOSED IT DOESN'T HAVE FRONT ACT. THE ONLY ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS LOT EIGHT AND ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR TO BE TREATED AS IS ESSENTIALLY A CORNER LOT WITH A 15-FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF A 25-FOOT SETBACK. SO THAT WE CAN BUILD A HOME THAT IS GREATER THAN 17 FEET TO 15 FEET IN-DEPTH.

THE HOME IS GOING TO BE ORIENTED TO THE EAST, SO THE DRIVEWAY WILL BE COMING OFF THIRD STREET. THAT WILL ESSENTIALLY BE ITS FRONT YARD. TO THE VERY NICE LADY WHO LIVES NEXT DOOR, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS BECAUSE THE HOME THAT WE'RE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE SIMILAR SETBACK FROM THIRD STREET AS THE HOME THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, AS MR. LABANOWSKI SAID. IT'S ABOUT 15-FOOT SETBACK CURRENTLY. AND THE HOMES THAT WE'RE BUILDING ARE GOING TO BE MORE THAN 50 FEET -- I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE WITH A 25-FOOT -- I MEAN, THEY'RE GOING TO BE 75 FEET AWAY FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS GREATER THAN THE CURRENT HOME THAT'S THERE. IF YOU COMBINE ALL THESE THREE LOTS AND BUILD ONE HOME THAT HAS FRONTAGE ON THIRD STREET, THE AREA TO THE EAST, THAT HOME, TO THE ON YOUR SCREEN WOULD ONLY HAVE TO BE I THINK EIGHT FEET. YOU CAN CHECK WITH MR. SMITH ON THAT. SO THIS LAYOUT HAS A GREATER SETBACK OF THE HOMES FROM THE EXISTING HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK PRESERVES THE INTENT OF THE LOT ON RECORD. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> MS. SPIEGEL.

>> YES, THANK YOU. I LIKE THE --

>> MAKES YOU LOOK YOUNGER. SO FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT I DON'T REMEMBER HER NAME. I APOLOGIZE, I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT DOWN. THE REALTOR GAVE THAT SHE'S ONLY ADDRESSING PARCEL SEVEN AND NINE.

>> YES. >> THAT IS A SEPARATE OWNER FROM

PARCEL EIGHT? >> THAT IS A SEPARATE BUYER.

THEY'RE ALL CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE SAME PERSON.

>> OKAY. SO MOVING FORWARD, IT WOULD BE A

SEPARATE BUYER. >> YES.

>> OKAY. WELL, SIR, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MR. OLSON. I THINK IT'S A STRETCH TO SAY THAT OUR HOME IS ORIENTED TO THE EAST AND THE DRIVEWAY WILL BE OUR FRONT YARD. I'VE NOT EVER SEEN THAT PROBABLY. MAYBE IT DOES EXIST.

AND THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT REALLY A ROAD, BUT WE'LL CALL IT A ROAD BECAUSE IT SUITS OUR DEFINITION.

I GET THAT IT'S A LOT MUCH RECORD.

AND I DO GET THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD.

I DO UNDERSTAND THAT REGARDLESS OF DEED RESTRICTIONS.

WHATEVER. YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP YOUR PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY OF YOUR CLIENT.

BUT I AM NOT REALLY SEEING THE HARDSHIP.

THEY KNEW KNOWINGLY WENT IN AND PURCHASED THIS ASSUMING THEY WOULD GET THE VARIANCE. I'M OKAY WITH THEM BUILDING WITHIN THE RS3 CONSTRICTIONS, BUT I'M NOT SEEING THE HARDSHIP TO BE ABLE TO GRANT A VARIANCE ON THIS PARTICULAR THING.

SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> MR. GREEN.

>> YES. I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THE HARDSHIP, AND I TRY TO HELP AS MANY PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BUILD A SHED OR POOL IN THE BACKYARD TO FIND THE HARDSHIP.

THIS HARDSHIP WAS CREATED BY THE BUY -- OR THE OWNER.

THIS WAS JUST BOUGHT I THINK THIS YEAR IN JANUARY '26.

YOU CAN DIVIDE UP THE LOTS. THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE.

BUT THE HARDSHIP WAS CREATED BY THE OWNER.

AND IN OUR POLICY -- I MEAN, IT'S DEFINITELY MONETARY REASON HE'S DOING IT, HE OR SHE IS DOING IT, AND THAT'S NOT A REASON FOR US TO CONSIDER IT A HARDSHIP.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, MAY I RESPOND TO PUT ON THE RECORD?

[01:20:03]

>> YES, PLEASE. >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT MR. GREEN. I -- THROUGH THE CHAIR, BUT THE HARDSHIP WASN'T CREATED BY THE OWNER.

THE HARDSHIP WAS CREATED BY THE CLOSURE OF BAY STREET.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER YOU CAN BUILD ONE HOME OR TWO HOMES OR THREE HOMES ON IT. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS ORIGINALLY THIS WAS A CORNER LOT.

AND WHEN YOU HAVE A CORNER LOT YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SETBACKS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FRONT YARDS.

ONE HAS TO BE 25 FEET. ONE HAS TO BE 15 FEET.

WHEN BAY STREET WAS CLOSED, WHICH WASN'T CLOSED BY ANY OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, BAY STREET WAS CLOSE THE BY THE COUNTY, HOWEVER MANY YEARS AGO, THIS WENT FROM BEING THREE LOTS THAT HAD FRONTAGE ON A ROAD AND ONE OF THEM BEING A CORNER LOT, TO ONE LOT BEING COMPLETELY LANDLOCKED AND HAS NO FRONTAGE.

THE LOT TO THE SOUTH HAS NO FRONTAGE ON ANY ROAD.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO USE ONE OF THE LOTS OF RECORD AND DESTROY THE RIGHT TO BUILD A HOME THERE FOR ACCESS.

AND THEN THE LOT THAT WE'RE HERE ON, LOT 8, WENT FROM BEING A CORNER LOT TO NOW HAVING ONLY FRONTAGE ON THIRD STREET, SO IT HAS TO ABIDE BY THE 25-FOOT SETBACK.

SO THAT'S THE HARDSHIP. THAT WASN'T CREATED BY ANYBODY OTHER THAN THE ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

>> BUT YOU CAN STILL BUILD ONE HOUSE WITHOUT THE HARDSHIP.

>> IT'S BUILDING ONE HOUSE THAT WOULD BE SO NARROW I DON'T THINK

IT'S BUILDABLE OR LIVABLE. >> ALL THREE OF THESE PARCELS?

ON THIS SITE THAT YOU'VE GOT. >> IT WOULD -- THEN YOU WOULD BE DESTROYING THE RIGHT OF THE LOT OF RECORD BECAUSE EACH LOT IS ENTITLED TO ONE HOME. SO -- UNDER YOUR LAW -- SO 8, 7, AND 9, EACH ONE OF THOSE IS ENTITLED UNDER YOUR CODE AND STATE OF FLORIDA LAW TO ONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

EIGHT, WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED BEFORE BAY STREET WAS CLOSED, WOULD HAVE HAD THE FRONTAGE ALONG BAY STREET AND WOULD HAVE HAD THE SECOND FRONT YARD ON THIRD STREET.

>> BUT THIS WAS BOUGHT AS ONE PARCEL.

>> THAT'S -- THERE'S -- THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

THE LOT OF RECORD AND THE RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND THE HARDSHIP DOESN'T MATTER HOW IT WAS PURCHASED.

IF WE BOUGHT UP THE ENTIRE BLOCK THAT WOULDN'T DESTROY THE LOT OF

RECORD RIGHTS. >> I STILL HAVE A PROBLEM.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> I JUST -- LIKE I SAID, TO ME IT WAS CREATED WHEN IT WAS BOUGHT.

YOU COULD -- WHOEVER BOUGHT THIS COULD SIMPLY BUILD A NEW HOUSE

ON IT. >> BUT THEY COULDN'T BUILD TWO.

AND IT'S ENTITLED FOR THREE. >> BUT AGAIN, I -- WHEN THE PERSON BOUGHT IT THEY KNEW AT THE TIME THAT THEY BOUGHT IT THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

THAT'S WHAT I DON'T -- >> I DEAL WITH THIS IN A LOT OF OTHER AREAS. THIS IS THE THING WITH A LOT OF RECORD. WHEN YOU CREATE A LOT, IT'S NOT JUST THE OWNER BUYING IT CREATING THE LOT.

WHEN IT'S PLATTED, THE GOVERNMENT CREATES THAT.

THAT IS A DEVELOP ORDER. IT COMES WITH DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. BECAUSE THAT PREDATES BOTH THE ZONING CODE TANNED REDATES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED -- AND IT -- NESS EXEMPTION FROM ANY DENSITY REQUIREMENTS -- THAT'S -- AND ITS LOT SIZE, THE ONLY THING IT STILL HAS TO ABIDE BY IS THE SETBACKS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE CLOSING OF BAY STREET TURNED A CORNER LOT INTO ONE FRONTAGE WITH ONLY 50 FEET OF DEPTH. AND THAT MAKES AN EXCEPTIONALLY NARROW LOT. SO IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED, WE'VE ESSENTIALLY TAKEN THREE LOTS AND MADE IT SO YOU COULD

ONLY HAVE ONE HOME. >> HOW ARE THEY BUILDING HOUSES UP AND DOWN THE STREET OP THESE 50-FOOT LOTS -- ON.

>> THEY ARE 50 FEET -- 50 FEET AT THE ROAD, AND THEN 100 FEET BACK. AND THEY'RE NOT CORNER LOTS.

THESE WEREN'T ON -- THEY WEREN'T ON A ROAD THAT WAS CLOSED.

SO IF YOU GO UP AND DOWN PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE AREA -- WELL, HERE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT IT UP ON THIRD, YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, LOT 16, 14, 12, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, THOSE ARE ALL 50-FEET WIDE AND 100 FEET DEEP.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE ISSUE BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE DEPTH OF 100 FEET. SO THEY CAN ABIDE BY THE 25-FOOT SETBACK. THIS WAS SET UP TO COME OFF OF BAY STREET, BUT WHEN IT WAS CLOSED THIRD STREET BECAME ITS

FRONTAGE. >> SO LOT SEVEN IS HOW DEEP?

>> DEEP, ABOUT 100 FEET. >> SO IT'S A NORMAL SIZE 50 BY 100 LOT THAT'S UP AND DOWN THAT STREET?

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> SO YOU CAN BUILD ON THAT LOT. >> WE COULD.

I DON'T THINK THE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE US TO BUILD ONE HOME

THERE. >> BUT, I MEAN, TECHNICALLY YOU CAN BUILD ONE. THEN YOU HAVE LOT EIGHT AND NINE, WHICH YOU CAN BUILD A HOUSE ON.

>> WHICH WOULD THEN AGAIN DESTROYED THE RIGHTS FOR ONE OF THEM. BECAUSE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THREE. WE THINK THIS SETUP IS BETTER BECAUSE IT PUSHES THE TWO NEW HOMES FURTHER AWAY FROM THE

[01:25:02]

NEIGHBORS. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY.

>> THAT WAS FUN THOUGH. >> MR. MATOVINA.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, PLEASE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR L MILLER FIRST.

>> OKAY. -- FOR MR. MILLER FIRST.

>> OKAY. >> A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

COULD YOU ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THIS NEW HOUSE IS GOING TO BE

HOOKED TO SEWER SYSTEM? >> IT'S GOING TO BE CENTRAL

WATER AND CENTRAL SEWER. >> OKAY.

>> BECAUSE THE PERSON STATED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE ON

SEPTIC. >> I JUST CONFIRMED WITH THE REALTOR THAT THIS AREA HAS WATER AND SEWER AVAILABLE.

>> OKAY. AND I WISH WE COULD GET A COMMITMENT ON TREES, THAT NONE OF THOSE TREES WOULD BE TAKEN DOWN, BUT I'M NOT SURE WE CAN EXTRACT THAT.

ALL RIGHT. MR. MATOVINA.

>> I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE 2026-06 BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACTS AND SIX CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED

IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. MATOVINA. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. GROUP. LET'S NOT START -- GREEN.

LET'S NOT START VOTING WE WILL WE HAVE ALL COMMENTS IN.

>> I APOLOGIZE. THIS IS A RENTALLATION THAT IF ANYBODY IS VOTING TO APPROVAL -- RECOMMENDATION -- OF

TRANSFERABILITY. >> MR. MATOVINA.

>> MR. CHAIR -- MR. CHAIR, I PULLED UP THE ORDER AND, IN FACT, IF THIS VARIANCE WAS APPROVED THE VARIANCE IS DESIGNED TO BE TRANSFERABLE AND APPLIED TO THE FRONT YARD.

>> THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE.

I WANTED THAT ON THE RECORD. >> OKAY.

I CAN'T GET YOUR MIC TO COME ON. OH, THERE.

LET'S SEE. OKAY.

>> OKAY. SO I SELL LOTS IN BLOCKS TO BUILDERS. I SELL THEM 10 LOTS IN A ROW.

OKAY? THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD ON EACH ONE OF THOSE LOTS. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.

LOTS OF RECORD ONCE I PLAT THEM. THESE ARE LOTS OF RECORD.

HE HAS A RIGHT TO BUILD THREE HOUSES.

THE FACT HE KNEW THERE WAS THIS VARIANCE ISSUE WHEN HE BOUGHT 'EM DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT DOESN'T A HARDSHIP.

AND HE DIDN'T CREATE THE HARDSHIP.

THE HARDSHIP WAS CREATED WHEN THE ROAD WAS CLOSED.

SO I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT KNOWLEDGE IS IN THIS CASE A PREREQUISITE TO DISAPPROVING THIS VARIANCE.

ONE OF THE SPEAKERS TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS OUT THAT THAT REQUIRE YOU TO BUILD ONE HOUSE ON THREE LOTS. THAT MAY VERY WELL BE THE CASE.

IT'S BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD.

THAT'S A LEGAL ISSUE FOR LAWYERS LIKE THIS SMART YOUNG MAN TO FIGURE OUT.

I CAN'T FIGURE THAT OUT WITH THE SKIRT THAT I'M WEARING UP HERE.

SAY -- AND I'M NOT 100% SURE OF THIS, BUT I ASSUME THAT THEY COULD ACTUALLY COME IN AND ASK FOR A WAIVER OF THE FRONTAGE ON THE THIRD LOT THAT HAS NO FRONTAGE AND BUILD THREE HOUSES ON THESE LOTS. I ASSUME WE CAN ASK FOR A JACOB A WAIVER OF FRONTAGE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> DO YOU WANT TO COME OVER HERE?

>> THERE WE GO. THROUGH THE CHAIR TO MR. MATOVINA'S QUESTION, SO ONE OF THE ISSUES WE WORKED THROUGH WHEN THIS VARIANCE WAS SUBMITTED WAS THAT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ISN'T MET AND SO ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THESE ARE DEVELOPABLE WAS BECAUSE THEY'RE LOTS OF RECORD, BUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOESN'T LET US SORT OF AD HOC WAVE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THERE WOULD BE LOTS OF WEIRD ACCESS ISSUES AND SO FORTH TRYING TO GET A THIRD ONE, AT LEAST IN THIS CONFIGURATION. I'M NOT SURE HOW THE ACCESS TO THE BACK LOT, IF YOU WILL, WOULD FUNCTION.

IF SOMEBODY COULD FIGURE IT OUT, YES, POTENTIALLY COULD YOU BUILD

THREE LOTS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

ANYWAY, SO I -- YOU KNOW, QUITE PERSONALLY, I THINK THERE IS A HARDSHIP. AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO IF THEY END UP WITH THE TWO HOUSES CLOSER TO THE WATER. GRANTED, THE BUYER WILL PROBABLY MAKE SOME GOOD MONEY. TWO WATERFRONT LOTS.

THAT'S THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. THAT'S DEMOCRACY.

AND CAPITALISM. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> DO WE HAVE COMMENT? >> LET'S GET A SECOND.

SORRY. I TOOK AN ANTIHISTAMINE TODAY.

[01:30:04]

ALL RIGHT. DISCUSSION, YES.

MISS. >> , DO YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS?

>> NO. HE HAS EXPERIENCE IN THIS FROM HIS BUSINESS. SO HE HAS A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. I DON'T KNOW THAT I NECESSARILY AGREE EVEN IF THE FACTS ARE WHAT THEY ARE IN OUR OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW IT SAYS THE APPLICANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE EXISTS A SPECIAL CONDITION OR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PROPERTY SUCH AS THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE LAND OF ELEMENT CODE CONSTITUTES A HARDSHIP.

THE AGENCY MAY CONSIDER THE QUALITY, CHARACTER, CONVINCING POWER, PRIVATIVE VALUE OR WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, AS WELL AS REPORTED BY STAFF, EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT AND EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRODUCED BY PUBLIC COMMENT, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER EVIDENCE PRESENTED OR DISCLOSED DURING THIS HEARING. SO, I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF LAND, AND I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA THAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO THE MOST WITH WHAT HIS PROPERTY IS.

AND AS MR. MATOVINA SAID, THAT'S THE AMERICAN WAY.

THAT IS OUR SOCIETY. I JUST THINK THAT THE VACATING OF BAY STREET IN 1977, AND THE-- EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD, THE INTENTION ABOUT THIS AREA WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, A BUNCH OF LITTLE SMALL HOUSES I THINK WAS KIND OF THE IDEA. AS FAR AS I CAN SEE IT.

MAYBE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BETTER VISION THAN I DO.

BUT THAT'S NOT HOW THE AREA HAS DEVELOPED.

AND THERE ARE-- MOST OF THE HOMES ARE BUILT ON TWO LOTS, EXCEPT FOR THE ONES YOU ADDRESSED, AND THOSE HAVE BEEN TORN DOWN AND REBUILT WITH THE ONES ON SINGLE LOTS.

SO I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED. I THINK IT IS A STRETCH FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE HARDSHIP ON THIS ONE.

AND I THINK I'M GOING TO STAY WITH MY NO VOTE ON THIS ONE.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE IT. IT IS A NOBLE EFFORT.

AND IT WILL PROBABLY PASS. BUT I JUST-- THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. MAN.

>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE WITH MR. MATOVINA THAT THE-- AND WITH MR. MILLER, THAT THE HARDSHIP WAS CREATED WHEN BAY STREET WAS CLOSED IN 1971. THIS WAS A CORNER LOT UNTIL 1971. THERE WAS A LOT OF RECORD AT THAT TIME. I THINK YOU MADE A CASE FOR A HARDSHIP. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.

MR. GREEN? >> I'M READY TO VOTE.

TURN THE THING ON. >> WE HAVE A TIED.

AS PEOPLE ARE AWARE, A TIE IS A DENIAL.

[6. MAJMOD 2023-11 Canopy Shores. Request for a Major Modification to the St. Augustine Shores PUD (ORD. 1974-16, as amended) to convert the allowed use for approximately 2.8 acres of land from Business to Single Family Residential in order to provide for nine (9) single-family lots, specifically located at the northeast corner of Shores Boulevard and Christina Drive.]

ALL RIGHT. DO WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK BEFORE THE NEXT ITEM? IT'S THE LAST ONE SINCE ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT HAVE BEEN DEFERRED.

WE HAVE A MAJOR MODIFICATION, CANOPY SHORES, DOWNTOWN CORPORATION. WE NEED MISS SPIEGEL.

>> YES. I DID A SITE VISIT AND I HAD A TEXT COMMUNICATION WITH ANITA, A MEMBER OF THE ST JOHNS COUNTY

LAMP BOARD. >> MR. OLSON?

>> SITE VISIT AND SEVERAL EMAILS HAVE COME IN THAT ARE OPPOSED AS WELL. I BELIEVE THERE IS SOMETHING

THERE. >> MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> I RECEIVED SEVERAL EMAILS AND I VISITED THE SITE.

>> MR. GREEN? >> VISITED THE SITE, DROVE BY IT MANY TIMES. [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> I DID VISIT THE SITE YESTERDAY.

I HAD SEEN THE SITE PREVIOUSLY, I'VE DRIVEN BY IT A LOT.

BUT I'VE SEEN THE SITE PREVIOUSLY, NEARLY FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN WE CONSIDERED THIS SIMILAR ITEM.

BUT IT WAS FOR TEN BUILDING LOTS AT THE TIME.